Monday, March 6, 2017

Preaching to those who adore, & those who loathe President Trump

How can we do a
better job of preaching to people who adore Donald Trump, and to those who
loathe him, when they are together in the pews in front of us?

When I’m
constructing a sermon, I’ve often remembered what Zan Holmes said in a
preaching conference years ago.He spoke
of a “gallery” in his office, photos and images of saints and heroes, and he
imagines them looking over his shoulder, cheering him on, reminding him to be
faithful and courageous.I have Martin
Luther King, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther, Francis of Assisi, and Jesus himself
with their eyes trained on me as I type right now.

I’ve expanded
this when I’ve taught preaching myself – to include, at least in your
imagination, who will be coming on Sunday.The woman whose husband said “I’ve never loved you,” the man who just
got fired, the mom whose daughter hates church, the dad whose grown son won’t
return his phone calls.And then also
the people who won’t be there.The
unchurched, the homeless, a refugee, a rabbi friend.And maybe my seminary professors, although I
worry that when preachers prepare as if the professor of exegesis will be
there, the sermon might be a touch on the academic or even pedantic side.

As of this week,
I am rethinking all this – in light of something I found in Jonathan Haidt’s The
Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.It’s a great book that goes a long way toward
explaining what we’ve seen in the past few months:Clinton supporters being absolutely baffled
and mortified by Trump supporters, and Trump fans mocking and harboring anger
toward Clinton supporters.Studies show
that different people have different “taste receptors.”To one group of people, if you speak of
inclusion and caring for those in need, they nod warmly; but others are numb to
the same appeal, or veer toward thoughts like personal responsibility and
fairness.

Everyone wants “fairness,” but
it means different things to different people, as Haidt shows via photos.

Family of origin proves to be the origin of
much of this: you’re 2 years old, your family drives by a beggar; in one
family, words of sympathy are spoken or money is handed through the window; in
another family, dad says “He should get a job.I dug ditches when I was 17 just to get by.”Liberals think authority should be
questioned; conservatives think it should be heeded.But “think” is the wrong verb.It’s way down in the gut, way prior to
reasons or facts.

Haidt gathers up
all these studies and suggests that people have six such “taste receptors”: caring, loyalty, fairness, authority,
sanctity, and liberty.Most people are
strong on a couple of these, and lacking in others – which then is why we don’t
comprehend what others are saying.My
first thought about this, regarding preaching, was basically Aha!I’m talking about caring all the time, but a large number of those
listening are authority/sanctity people.No wonder they look puzzled.Haidt would ask why we don't find ways to balance our appeals. If I have a text that speaks tenderly about caring, I would be wise in that same sermon to find a way to speak to the importance of holiness. If I am weighing in on the authority of Scripture and the importance of adhering to God's law, I need somewhere in there to speak of God's merciful loyalty to us, or of the joys of freedom. If I want to underline the obligation to welcome strangers, and even immigrants, I might find a way to emphasize why law and order matters - which can play two ways, right? Those who would reduce immigration think the law should be enforced - but we might agree if we are speaking of acts of violence against immigrants. When you compose the sermon, think of Trump foes and Trump fans, and intentionally say something to both of them that will challenge but also comfort. Press more than one button.

But then I read
one of Haidt’s paragraphs, and a light bulb popped on in my head.After retelling how he advised had Democrats
to speak the language of and appeal to the emotions of those on the other side,
instead of continuously affirming those already with them and further
alienating those who aren’t, he added this: “I advised Democrats to stop dismissing conservatism as a pathology and
start thinking about morality beyond care and fairness.I urged them to close the sacredness gap
between the two parties by making greater use of the Loyalty, Authority, and
Sanctity foundations, not just in the ‘messaging,’ but in how they think about
public policy and the best interests of the nation.”

Bingo.Haidt helps me understand why much of what I
say gets misunderstood, and he hints at ways to connect – but maybe more
importantly, he dares to suggest that I might need to think more thoroughly
about how I think.As I try to take into
account various kind of people and their passions, might that help me reckon
with the diverse dimensions within Scripture and theology itself?I might find a better strategy, and even be
truer to what God is actually about.

Sure, we have an
inevitable emphasis on caring.But there
is much authority and sanctity language in the Bible and our theology.Could it be that if, instead of thinking just
about Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, and the woman whose daughter hates
church, we conjured up a new gallery?What if in sermon preparation I reminded myself that there are those who
say Authority is to be questioned, and others who think it is to be heeded, or
that there is the guy who loves the slogan “Tax the wealthy” sitting not far
from another guy who loves the slogan “Spread my work ethic, not my wealth,”
that a woman there is deeply sympathetic to the plight of a friend who had an
abortion sitting not far from another woman who bore a child after testing
indicated a defect was certain, so highly did she view the sacredness of life? Not only might I find the way to reach all of
them, if I intentionally appeal to all of them, but I might actually notice
things in the text, and in our theological tradition I’d missed or just
underemphasized because of the way my own brain/emotional self is arranged.

So I am going to
experiment for a few weeks, especially in my weekly
preaching blog I hope you’ll get via emailing
me.Dig into my text, find what I’m led
to say, and then ask if I can say something, anything, with integrity, that
appeals to the opposite set of taste receptors.Is there something in this text for both sides?I suspect the answer is Yes – and I might get a fairer hearing if I can offer something to
everybody.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Follow by Email!!!

About Me

I’m pastor of Myers Park United Methodist Church in Charlotte, NC, and I also teach preaching and ministry at Duke Divinity School as an adjunct. I write regular inspirational/ educational pieces you’ll find here, reviews of books pertinent to faith today and ministry, and I love to be part of conversations about life with God and in the world among Christians and clergy.